Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, it is interesting that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle can come into this Chamber and talk about homelessness and talk about rehabilitation and talk about the need for housing. I am the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee with every wish and every hope to be able to have this committee take up a bill on homelessness. I have not been able to get that done. We have taken up over 100 bills on the Financial Services Committee, but not once have we dealt with the issue of homelessness. The gentleman from Minnesota who talked about homelessness and the fact that veterans are homeless is absolutely correct, but what are you going to do about it? Are you going to come to the floor to try and convince the Members of this House that somehow a demonstration project where you take 10,000 vouchers from the existing vouchers that people are standing in line for is going to make a dent in this problem? I don't think so. This problem has been around for a long time, and I really do want the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to understand what has not been done to help those people who have needed a lot of assistance and a lot of help. I can recall, God bless her soul, when Nancy Reagan said to drug abusers, ``Just Say No.'' This is another piece of legislation that falls in that category: 10,000 vouchers in a demonstration project. You have been hearing how huge this problem is. We don't need a demonstration project for a few people taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been standing in line. We need to appropriate the dollars that are necessary, number one, to help fund those organizations that have been working on this problem for years that need more money, that need more beds, that need more resources. We need more money not only to deal with the housing issue that is attempting to be addressed in this demonstration project, but whether it is helping to equip police departments with the necessary equipment to save lives of the people on the street who are overdosed that they encounter in their daily work. Some communities have that, a few communities have that, but every community experiencing this problem needs to have that. In addition to that, we need more beds for rehabilitation. You can't get to supportive housing until you deal with the addiction so that when people are ready to go into transitional housing, they get the support that goes along with that. That is not just a bed and a roof, but it is the social services that go along with it. It will cost money, and unless you are willing to put up the dollars, unless you are willing to work with our appropriators to do what is necessary to honestly and forcefully deal with this issue, we are just talking about it. We are just pontificating. We are just saying things that we don't even understand. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I have this opportunity, I will refer to my bill on homelessness again. My bill is a bill that will end homelessness. It costs $13 billion, and I would dare say that we could have funded this effort when we were thinking about the tax cuts. Some of those tax cuts benefit the richest people in this country. While we were reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, we could have easily spent $13 billion to deal with ending homelessness. That tax cut was worth $1.8 trillion. $13 billion from that $1.8 trillion, what would that have done for homelessness in America? We could have been on the road to ending homelessness. So the bill number is H.R. 2076. I am hopeful that the Members of the House and the Members of the Senate will take a look at this legislation so that they know that we have something that has been given a lot of attention, that has a lot of research, that understands what it takes to get rid of homelessness. So my bill, H.R. 2076, is a bill that I would ask my colleagues to immediately support. Mr. Chairman, we have many Members of this Congress who want to do something about providing housing opportunities for those who are the victims of opioid abuse and drugs. I join with them, and I, too, am very concerned, and I know that we can do something substantive about this issue of providing housing opportunities. But again, I will say over and over again, it should not be done in such a way that we have a little demonstration project that will take away 10,000 vouchers from the neediest of people who have been standing in line, in order to say or think or have anyone believe that we are doing something about this crisis in America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of Mr. Hensarling how many more speakers he has.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this week, we are seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle advance legislation focused on individuals with opioid use disorders. We are really talking about drug addiction. These are the people they used to call drug addicts, and I don't want us to hide behind any new language. We are talking about a serious problem of addiction here. But something very important is missing from these bills and that is new resources and funding necessary to actually make a difference for those individuals. H.R. 5735 is a clear example of this problematic approach. Rather than providing funding for housing assistance vouchers for individuals with disorders, individuals who are addicted, this bill takes away 10,000 existing vouchers that would otherwise go to people in need, many of whom have been waiting and waiting for years. There are millions of people on waiting lists across the country, including families with children, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and others in need. Redistributing these vouchers away from others who need housing is simply not a fair or reasonable step. What we need is bold action to commit real dollars to tackling this public health crisis, and also to address the shortage of affordable housing in this country. Unfortunately, this bill falls short and commits no new funding for additional vouchers. While H.R. 5735 has an important goal, the way it tries to get there is ultimately harmful and counterproductive. For these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill. This will not begin to make a dent in the crisis. We don't need a demonstration project. We need to move forward with a committed project with the funding that is necessary in order to deal with drug addiction. We have drug addicts who are in the alleys and on the streets in communities who never saw this before, who never experienced this before. Listen to someone who has seen it, who knows about it, who understands how many lives have been lost because of it, and let's do the right thing. It is not about a demonstration project. It is not about just a few vouchers. This is about real action. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment is simply a last-ditch attempt to address significant administrative concerns and questions about the correct interpretation of the underlying legislation. The fact that this amendment had to be revised three times before a final version was submitted past the deadline for consideration by the Rules Committee, is indicative of the hasty and haphazard nature in which this bill has been cobbled together. For example, in response to a Congressional Budget Office score that interpreted the bill to create up to 50,000 new vouchers, resulting in a cost of $1.2 billion, this amendment would clarify that the intent of the gentleman from Kentucky was not to provide new funding, but, instead, to take vouchers away from people waiting in line for housing assistance. And while this amendment resolves a few technical issues, it also creates new problems. In particular, this amendment would add broad authority for the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to waive requirements that would otherwise apply under the Section 8 program. This includes being able to waive basic tenant protections as well as the requirement that rents are affordable to residents at 30 percent of their adjusted income, which is known as the Brooke amendment. In sum, this amendment does nothing to address the fundamental issues with this bill, including the fact that it prohibits new funding. Mr. Chairman, I really do need to point out that perhaps it was not clear in Mr. Barr's presentation about this amendment that this amendment additionally reinforces his point that no additional funds would be authorized. As a matter of fact, if you look at section 5 of the amendment where it says, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act and the amendments made by this act. Such requirement shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated,'' which simply means taking 10,000 vouchers from people who are waiting in line, who are desperate for the need for safe and secure housing, and it makes sure that you understand that he does not want any more funds appropriated. Except, there is some kind of contradiction that can be confusing. When he first introduced the bill--and I talked about the fact that he had not only asked me to sign on to a letter to the appropriators asking for more money, and I decided not to do that because of the fact that he still had this amendment that would say that there should be no additional funds spent on this. What is my friend doing? What is he talking about? How can he send a letter to the appropriators asking for more money when, not only does he have in the bill, but in the amendment to the bill, very clear language that says there should be no additional funds appropriated. Well, of course, that is confusing. And I am not so sure why the contradiction is there. But I do know this: I believe that the intent of my colleague is a good intent; that he really would like to do something about opioid addiction. I believe that most of the Members who have gotten involved in this issue and who are learning about it for the first time, and understanding that there is a crisis for the first time, want to do something about this issue. But what they have not done is, they have not taken the time to construct legislation to truly deal with the issue, and spend the money, ask for the money, ask for the resources that are necessary to deal with what they say is a crisis. They come here and they talk about homelessness, and they talk about the opioid abusers who are on the streets who need housing. Yes, they do. Just as all of those people who have been standing in line waiting for Section 8 housing need housing. They talk about veterans who are homeless. They are absolutely correct. Some of those veterans have drug problems. Others don't have drug problems. They have come back from their service to their country without jobs, without a place to live, and here we are, talking about robbing the folks who have been standing in line and who are in need-- including the veterans on the street--robbing them of their opportunities because we want to take away 10,000 housing vouchers from them. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the life and legacy of an American hero, Louis Zamperini. Louis Zamperini was an Olympic runner who, while serving as an airman during World War II, was captured and held as a prisoner of war. Many remember Louis Zamperini as an inspirational symbol of resilience, athleticism, and service. The city of Torrance and the residents of our community in the 43rd Congressional District of California are especially proud and inspired by Louis Zamperini. Louis Zamperini was the son of Italian immigrants. He moved to Torrance, California, at the age of 3 and was a graduate of Torrance High School. It was during his tenure at Torrance High School that Zamperini's abilities in track and cross country first gained notoriety. Nicknamed the ``Torrance Tornado,'' Louis Zamperini set the national high school record in the mile at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in 1934. His record time of 4 minutes 21.2 seconds was unbroken for 20 years. As a teenager, Zamperini qualified and competed in the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, Germany, where he finished eighth in the 5,000-meter run. After the Olympics, Zamperini earned a scholarship to the University of Southern California, where he became one of the university's most celebrated student athletes. Louis Zamperini enlisted in the United States Army Air Corps and served in World War II as a B-24 Liberator bombardier in the 372nd Bomb Squadron. During a rescue mission on May 27, 1943, Zamperini's plane crashed into the sea. Zamperini spent 47 days adrift in a life raft fending off starvation and fighting to survive. The United States military believed he had perished in the crash and informed his parents of his death in June 1943. In actuality, Zamperini was captured by a Japanese patrol boat and held as a prisoner of war. Over the next 2 years, he was regularly beaten and starved. Louis Zamperini was finally liberated following the Japanese surrender in September of 1945. Zamperini became an evangelical Christian and gave inspirational speeches across the country. He also founded the Victory Boys Camp, a wilderness camp, to assist at-risk youth. Louis Zamperini passed away on July 2, 2014, in Los Angeles at the age of 97 years old. Zamperini was married for 54 years to his wife, Cynthia, who preceded him in death. He was survived by his son, Luke, his daughter, Cynthia Garris, and his grandson, Clay. People across the country are familiar with Louis Zamperini's story, which was told in the 2010 book, ``Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption,'' by Laura Hillenbrand, which rose to number one on The New York Times Best Seller list. In 2014, director Angelina Jolie released a movie about Zamperini adapted from Hillenbrand's book. Because of his remarkable athletic abilities and heroic service to our country, Louis Zamperini will forever be remembered as a hero and favorite son of Torrance. That is why I am so very proud to announce that today, in collaboration with California's senior United States Senator, Dianne Feinstein, I have just introduced a resolution to rename the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1433 Marcelina Avenue in Torrance, California, as the Louis Zamperini Post Office Building. My legislation has the bipartisan support of the entire California delegation in the House of Representatives. Over the Memorial Day holiday weekend, as we honor the memory of the brave military servicemembers who have given their lives for our country, let us all reflect on the legacy of Louis Zamperini and countless other American heroes who have sacrificed to protect our ideals, our democracy, and our country

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the remarks that I prepared, I think I had better share this information with my colleagues. The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018, and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from that so-called tax bill that we passed, which we know was the Republican tax scam law. Democrats passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to prevent another financial crisis and protect consumers, investors, and our economy. The 2008 financial crisis resulted in 9 million people losing their jobs, 11 million people losing their homes to foreclosure, and the loss of $13 trillion in wealth. It was an economic catastrophe that must never be repeated. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are determined to help this President dismantle reforms that are designed to protect us from that kind of devastation to communities. Republicans are trying to pass this bill off as an effort solely designed to benefit small community banks. But the truth is, the bill is packed with poisonous provisions that benefit the megabanks like Wells Fargo and companies like Equifax. It also weakens critical mortgage protections to ensure borrowers can afford their loans, and prevent discrimination and fraud. One of the most harmful elements of this bill is its weakening of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, referred to as HMDA, which is a key tool to detect and prevent discriminatory practices in the mortgage market. S. 2155 would allow 85 percent of depository institutions to avoid ever having to report new HMDA data required by Dodd-Frank, even though they are already collecting the data, badly undermining efforts to ensure fair lending. But that is not all. This bill guts many of the protections Democrats put in place to reduce the risk of bank failures and bailouts and ensure that bank failures don't bring down the economy. It weakens stress tests and capital requirements for big banks, and undermines supervision of large foreign banks like Deutsche Bank. There is more. Despite Equifax's carelessness in exposing the personal data of 148 million Americans, S. 2155 rewards Equifax and the other two national credit bureaus by funneling more business their way. It also takes away Active Duty servicemembers' rights to sue the credit bureaus, even if the bureaus fail to provide required free credit monitoring, or notify them of scams involving their personal information. Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the many ways the bill would be harmful. Republicans have stacked the bill with provisions that have nothing to do with benefiting hardworking Americans and everything to do with helping out Wall Street. Donald Trump and the Republicans already gave a huge gift to big corporations with the tax scam, which came at the expense of hardworking Americans. Now they are pushing this rotten giveaway to Wall Street and big banks that harms consumers and increases the risk of another financial crisis. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat: The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018, and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. I have to say this over and over again: $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from the tax scam bill that was passed. These banks are just greedy. They will never get enough. They want to do away with Dodd-Frank because Dodd-Frank is protecting consumers from their fraud. Look how much money they are making. All they will tell you is this is all about community banks. But let me just tell you that community banks, credit unions, and the economy are doing great with Dodd-Frank reforms in place. The banking industry keeps making record profits, an average of $167 billion in annual profits in the last 3 years. Banks have increased lending to businesses by 80 percent since 2010. Community banks are outperforming larger banks in increased lending. Credit unions are growing and have increased lending by more than 10 percent in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Mr. Speaker, what more do they want? How much more money do they want from consumers? What is it they would have us do? What is it they would have us get rid of in Dodd-Frank that is protecting the average consumer, everyday working people? What would they have us do so that they can make more money? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, some of the Senators are saying they wish that they had never voted for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee.